Race

[Darorinag]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why isn't there any anti-white in that list? There can't be any anti-white "racism" can there?

What I find very interesting is that Dan is so clearly against multiculturalism, yet he is only half Armenian. Obviously he is a product of multiculturalism, go figure.

I am against race mixing. I am also against multicultural propaganda and immigration. I am not against whites marrying between different cultures. I am not against blacks marrying blacks from a country other than their own. I am simply against multicultural propaganda and its political correctness; multiculturalism is nothing but anti-whiteness.

Tell me why multiculturalism should be "celebrated."

But of course, you are yet to address ANY of the POINTS I have raised, and can't get across my personal background and the fact that my mom and dad were from different countries. Mind you, BOTH my mom AND dad are/were White. So there is no hypocrisy in my views.

For everyone else, please refrain from making personal insults and turning a discussion into a fight. It is not meant to be so.

Oh you mean you are exempted from it? YOU are the one attacking me over and over again. YOU are the one telling me I am a bigot, yet YOU are the one who is yet to get over the fact that I am of a culturally mixed (albeit 100% WHITE!!!) background... And I thought moderators should've been the ones to set an example of good/appropriate behaviour..... i guess i was wrong...

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why isn't there any anti-white in that list? There can't be any anti-white "racism" can there?

There is it got cut off, this will be it for me in this thread.

Here is a rather interesting link though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1166720,00.html

[anileve]

Posted by Anonymouse No one said anything about "purity", and yes some are superior over others despite what you like to believe. Sorry.

I don't fully understand your purpose here. Why must you engage in a debate if you deny science, mathematical statistics, sociology and studies conducted? Does that mean that you abide by the opinion of a few which have a clearly negative agenda to separate already separated people into further categories? You don't believe reports of FBI, Sourcebook and other organizations who specialize in the field, but some pompous academics and filthy separatist groups hold more credibility in your mind?

What I have included in my posts regarding the melanin in our skin is a scientific fact. The factors of evolution and the influence of a climate and geography on the physical makeup of people and the diseases they are more prone to is also a fact. Anthropology and Science cannot be disputed by some personal assumption.

If you disagree with me based on facts you have studied or encountered, then please provide me with a credible evidence validating your allegations.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by anileve I don't fully understand your purpose here. Why must you engage in a debate if you deny science, mathematical statistics, sociology and studies conducted? Does that mean that you abide by the opinion of a few which have a clearly negative agenda to separate already separated people into further categories? You don't believe reports of FBI, Sourcebook and other organizations who specialize in the field, but some pompous academics and filthy separatist groups hold more credibility in your mind?

What I have included in my posts regarding the melanin in our skin is a scientific fact. The factors of evolution and the influence of a climate and geography on the physical makeup of people and the diseases they are more prone to is also a fact. Anthropology and Science cannot be disputed by some personal assumption.

If you disagree with me based on facts you have studied or encountered, then please provide me with a credible evidence validating your allegations.

Nothing surprising dear, considering that our pall Anon elsewhere claimed he would more believe a Summerian script specialist over NASA specialists on what concerns astronomy and Earth axes shifting. Do you expect from someone like this to bases his beliefs on scientifical arguments?

[Darorinag]

Everyone has an agenda. Everyone does something BECAUSE OF or FOR something. That doesn't imply that there can be no scientific validity to anything.

Moreover, your claim that those statistics are based on personal and political agenda manages to disqualify your own sources as well. Anti-racism is an agenda just like racism.

[anileve]

"Statistically, the average serial killer is a white male from a lower to middle class background, usually in his twenties or thirties. Many were physically or emotionally abused by parents. "

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serials/what/whatmain.htm

Crime cannot be pinned to a particular "race" or "ethnicity", it's evident in every culture and every geographical zone, historically it varies from one nation to another. It is persistent and inherent in human nature overall. By separating people into classes and categories, one further widens the gap between people and encourages hate. It is also in human nature to blame certain conditions and fears on circumstances other than his own inability to stay objective. A personal experience cannot be be transcended into a generalization, it's inaccurate and ignorant, unfortunately many people engage in it.

Hate has no color, physical attributes or economic conditions, it feeds on fears and snowballs into violence. Discrimination is an offspring of a marriage between hate, anger and fear. It spreads its poisonous tentacles across people, nations and continents. It exists between Armenians and Turks, Blacks and Whites, French and British, Jews and Muslims, Irish Protestants and Catholics (just look at an ongoing violence in Northern Ireland, where so many have died). By acknowledging an existence of race and superiority you validate it and give it room for growth. If you have certain expectations most likely they will be justified. If you believe that Blacks are inferior to Whites that is exactly what you will stumble upon. You see only what you want to see, and not what is reality, you claim your personal experiences and your assumptions to constitute a reality. So it presents itself in the light you yourself have created.

[Darorinag]

Do you expect from someone like this to bases his beliefs on scientifical arguments?

Great fallacies you've got going there...

About Crime Library:

The Crime Library is a rapidly growing collection of more than over 500 nonfiction feature stories on major crimes, criminals, trials, forensics and criminal profiling, as well as award-winning fiction short stories by prominent writers. The stories focus mostly on recent crimes, but an expanding collection also delves into historically notorious characters, dating back to the 1400s and spanning the globe.

The Crime Library is a source of entertainment and education for millions of readers throughout the world, and it serves as an important resource for students researching current and historical subjects and for producers of television documentaries and book authors.

The site was founded by Marilyn J. Bardsley in January 1998. Court TV, a joint venture of AOL-Time Warner and Liberty Media Inc., purchased the Crime Library in September 2000.

---

That you use a very "appealing-to-masses" "entertainment" website as "proof" is nothing but a pointer that this source is not qualified to be presented as "scientific" proof.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse
"African" or "Africa" is a geographic term. A "white" from south Africa is technically an African.

Exactly!! But can you say that he is black, if you believe that race exists and is valid in your mind? Can you say that a white African is black, your hot babe Charlize Theron is from South Africa and so is Dave Matthews. Are they black? Race is non existent, it's a myth and as I have posted before: "The practice of dividing humans into races emerged during the European Enlightenment and was at that time generally accepted by both the scientific and lay communities." It is a term which has derived from politics to further separate people and ensure superiority of one power over another.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve I don't fully understand your purpose here. Why must you engage in a debate if you deny science, mathematical statistics, sociology and studies conducted? Does that mean that you abide by the opinion of a few which have a clearly negative agenda to separate already separated people into further categories? You don't believe reports of FBI, Sourcebook and other organizations who specialize in the field, but some pompous academics and filthy separatist groups hold more credibility in your mind?

Did I deny science? When did you prove that a "Negroid" living in Sweden will magically change his morphological and physiological traits to some how resemble a "Caucasoid"? You just assumed it based on the assumption of evolution. When did I not "believe" in FBI or Sourcebook statistics? Why are they "pompous academics" simply because they criticize your worldview of egalitarianism? When did I deny mathematical statistics? In fact, mathematical statistics can be manipulated, as I've already said.

Originally posted by anileve What I have included in my posts regarding the melanin in our skin is a scientific fact. The factors of evolution and the influence of a climate and geography on the physical makeup of people and the diseases they are more prone to is also a fact. Anthropology and Science cannot be disputed by some personal assumption.

No one disputes melanin, if you think that that's some sort of high horse you are touting, get over it. Melanin is indeed fact, when did I deny it? In your emotional filled haze you were quick to overlook my post, much like Fadix, in fact all your side does is overlook my position, and jump to hazy emotional-based conclusions. In fact, it is anthropology and science that you aren Fadix are disputing due to personal assumption. Your idea that "geography" determines race, is fallacious, and itself unsubstantiated. It is based on the assumption that we evolved.

Originally posted by anileve If you disagree with me based on facts you have studied or encountered, then please provide me with a credible evidence validating your allegations.

This thread is riddled with credible evidence, which you and Fadix have in one way or another dismissed because "it's not good enough" or "its racist". Dan provided pretty valuable information too, despite your side' appeal to your own ignorance of what things ought to be. I cannot do any better, if you the emotional egalitarians overlook simple facts, and misconstrue the message in my posts to fit your ideas of a egalitarian world.

[Anonymouse]

Race and Intelligence: The Evidence

Scientific data show that the races differ in intelligence—dogma holds otherwise.

by Samuel Taylor

There is probably no greater intellectual crime than to point out that the average intelligence of blacks is significantly lower than that of other races. American society punishes those who publicly state this view almost as vigorously as Islamic republics punish anyone who defames the Prophet.

Indeed, in an increasingly secular America, the dogma of racial equality has become virtually a religion. Like early Christians under the Romans, or Russian dissidents under the Soviets, Americans who question the dogma keep their forbidden opinions to themselves or exchange them only in private.

Despite its strength, one of the most remarkable things about the racial dogma is how new it is. Until only a few decades ago, hardly anyone thought the races were equal. Kipling wrote of “lesser breeds without the law,” and the Encyclopedia Britannica noted matter-of-factly in its 1914 edition that “The Negro is intellectually inferior to the Caucasian.” Until only a generation or two ago, this was the view of virtually all Americans: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman, to cite only Presidents.

Something equally remarkable about the dogma of equality is that there is no evidence to support it. One would search the planet in vain to find a single group of blacks that has managed to build an advanced, civilized society. By whatever standard one chooses, blacks demonstrate at every opportunity that they are not equal to other races. The history of Africa and the status of blacks in the United States are roughly what we would expect if the races have different capacities. But if the races are equally intelligent, disciplined, and hard-working, then nothing about Africa or African-Americans makes sense. Every disparity, every failure, every moment in history must be painstakingly explained.

The egalitarian position is therefore not based on evidence—for there is no evidence for that position—but on excuse-making. It consists purely in excusing blacks from the conclusion to which all the evidence points.

Race and IQ

In the United States, what little discussion there is about racial differences revolves around intelligence. Study after study has consistently shown that the average black IQ test score is 15 to 18 points lower than the white average. It appears that the gap starts at about 15 points in childhood and widens to as much as 20 points in adulthood. The gap has remained unchanged for 70 years—ever since IQ tests were first given to large numbers of Americans. Civil rights laws, greater social equality, and affirmative action have not reduced the difference.

As is clear from the diagram on this page, there is considerable overlap between more intelligent blacks and less intelligent whites; some blacks are clearly smarter than some whites. Egalitarians seize on this fact to discount the entire notion of racial differences but this is as absurd as claiming that because some women are taller than some men, the average man is no taller than the average woman.

Despite overlapping intelligence distributions, only 16 percent of blacks have IQs of more than 100, the white average. Whites are six to eight times more likely to have scores in the “gifted” range of 135 and higher, whereas blacks are six to eight times more likely to have scores in the “retarded” range of 70 or lower. At the very highest, genius level IQ scores, blacks are hardly to be found at all.

Not even the most reckless egalitarians can deny the differences in test scores. Instead, they claim that the scores are either meaningless or do not measure intelligence. It is true that intelligence cannot be defined to everyone's liking, but that does not mean it cannot be measured. IQ correlates almost perfectly with subjective impressions of intelligence. If you were to talk to five strangers for twenty minutes each and then rank them by intelligence, there is an excellent chance that you would give them the same rank order that an IQ test would.

Less subjectively, IQ tests are the best possible way to predict whether a student will get good grades or a white-collar worker will do a good job. If a test can accurately predict how well someone will do at any number of activities that we think of as requiring intelligence, it takes a peculiar stubbornness to insist that the test is not measuring intelligence.

IQ tests therefore measure what we understand to be intelligence. Blacks consistently score lower than whites on IQ tests. Are they therefore less intelligent than whites?

“Test Bias”

At this point, the egalitarian defense claims that IQ tests are somehow biased against blacks. Common as this charge is, it is nothing more than an ex post facto explanation for results that displease the egalitarians, for no one can look through a well-designed intelligence test and explain what the bias is and where it is to be found.

In fact, many modern IQ tests, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices, have no verbal or cultural content at all. They test a person's understanding of shapes and patterns, and are routinely given to people who do not even speak English. Other varieties of IQ test do involve language and inevitably have some cultural content—and these are the very tests on which the black/white gap in scores is narrowest. The more culturally specific an intelligence test is, the narrower the black/white gap becomes. The most abstract, culture-free tests show the largest gap.

The theory of “test bias” is that unfair tests consistently underrate blacks' abilities. If that were true, blacks who got the same test scores as whites would do better than the whites at the things test scores are supposed to measure: they would get better grades and do their jobs better. This does not happen; blacks do no better than the test scores predict. This raises a larger and different issue. Both the tests and the abilities they are supposed to measure may be biased against blacks. Some egalitarians actually make this argument, but it comes dangerously close to arguing that ability and intelligence themselves are somehow biased against blacks.

The “cultural bias” position is further weakened by the fact that newly-arrived Asian immigrants, for whom the United States really is an alien culture, outperform both blacks and whites on IQ tests. The assertion that the same tests that are culturally biased against blacks somehow favor Asians strains credibility.

If blacks are as intelligent as whites, there must be some way to demonstrate this. None has ever been devised. Are we to conclude that the intelligence of blacks remains forever hidden because every method for measuring it is faulty? Believers in test bias cannot explain why it is impossible to design an intelligence test—carefully eliminating all bias—on which blacks score as well as whites. The explanation is that there is no bias to eliminate. “Bias” is an imaginary culprit.

Heritability

If tests cannot be shown to be biased, the next line of defense for egalitarians is to admit that, yes, IQ tests measure intelligence fairly and that blacks therefore may be less intelligent. They nevertheless insist that the difference is due to environment rather than genetics.

Some radical egalitarians talk as if intelligence were wholly a product of environment, but this is obviously not true. Mentally retarded children usually start life in the same environment as their normal siblings, but there is clearly something wrong with them and not with their surroundings. Intelligence comes in fine gradations all the way from genius to idiot. To admit that idiocy is genetic but to claim that every other level of intelligence is due to environment is like saying that the heights of dwarfs are governed by genes but that the heights of everyone else are governed by environment.

The nature v. nurture debate as it applies to intelligence is therefore about which predominates, and the best evidence comes from twin studies. Identical twins are genetically the same, whereas fraternal twins are no more similar to each other than ordinary siblings. When they are reared in the same household, twins have environments that are as similar as can be, but occasionally twins are separated at birth and reared apart. The crucial finding is that identical twins reared apart have more similar IQs (and personalities) than fraternal twins reared in the same household. Identical genes count for more than an identical environment.

Sir Cyril Burt, Hans Eysenck, R. Travis Osborne, and, most recently, Thomas J. Bouchard, are just a few of the people who have studied the intelligence of twins. They have concluded that intelligence is under considerably greater genetic than environmental control, with heredity accounting for 60 to 80 percent of all differences in intelligence. Thus, if one person has an IQ of 100 and another an IQ of 125, heredity accounts for 15 to 20 of the 25-point difference. Not even the most heroic environmental intervention could close the IQ gap by more than 10 points.

It is sometimes argued that if intelligence is affected even in the slightest by environment, society owes the less intelligent whatever boost a good environment can give them. Obviously, it is the intelligent who would have to provide the less intelligent with an IQ-boosting environment. So far, the evidence suggests that we do not know how to manipulate the environment to produce lasting IQ gains (see A Head Start Does Not Last) and if we did, the intelligent would demand the same treatment for themselves as for the unintelligent. The gap would presumably stay the same or grow wider.

One superficially plausible egalitarian argument is to claim that the meager circumstances in which blacks live thwart their development; rear blacks in good, middle-class homes, it is claimed, and they will be as smart as whites. In fact, a good number of adopted blacks have been reared in white homes, but their IQs remain closer to those of their natural parents than to their adoptive parents. The meager-circumstances argument likewise founders on the IQ scores of American Indians, Mexican immigrants, and Puerto Ricans. They often live in conditions of greater squalor than blacks, yet outperform them on intelligence tests.

Scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) provide some of the most eye-opening data on the relative unimportance of environment. The SAT is not designed as an intelligence test, but it gives results that virtually mirror intelligence. Black students who grow up in families with incomes of more than $70,000 a year get lower scores than whites who grow up in families with incomes of less than $20,000 a year. It would be hard to find more persuasive evidence that race counts for more than family circumstances.

The conditions in which blacks live are the result, not the cause of low intelligence. If an anthropologist were to imagine a society composed of people with an average IQ of 85—with one sixth as many gifted people and six times as many retarded people as in white society—would he not come up with something like pre-colonial Africa or the American inner city?

America is increasingly a society in which intelligence determines social status and success in life. Despite endless claims that America is inveterately prejudiced against non-whites, citizens of all races reap the rewards of intelligence. Prof. Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware has calculated that there are slightly more black doctors, lawyers, and PhDs than the distribution of black intelligence levels would suggest.

If this is true, it has profound implications. It would mean that blacks have already gotten as far in American society as their natural limitations permit. It would also mean that the number of blacks at high levels cannot be increased unless standards are further lowered and that the lingering handicaps of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation have completely disappeared. In other words, there is no such thing as “the legacy of slavery.”

Blacks in Other Societies

Surprising as this conclusion may seem, it is born out by the record of blacks in other white societies. For example, blacks are one eighth of the population of the United States and one eighth of the population of London, England. In both cases they commit about half of the reported crime. Canada does not keep official crime statistics by race, but informal estimates are that the two to five percent of the people of Toronto who are black commit 30 to 40 percent of the crime.

Large numbers of blacks have been living in Canada and England for only a few decades, yet their crime rates are equivalent to those of blacks who have suffered “400 years of oppression” in the United States. Although data is scarce, Canadian and British blacks also seem to have rates of poverty and illegitimacy that are the equivalents of American blacks.

All other multi-racial societies show the same pattern. In Brazil, for example, slavery was never as widespread as in the United States and race relations are consistently described as better than they are here. Yet the disparity between black and white incomes is greater in Brazil than in the United States. Cuba also has a mixed population and is famous for its aggressive, socialist egalitarianism. Though Cuban officials are embarrassed by this and try to keep it a secret, blacks are invariably at the bottom of society.

The primitive circumstances of pre-colonial Africa are well known, as is the spectacular failure of Africans to build modern nations after independence (see “Why is Africa Poor,” AR, Jan. 1992). Africans suffer from primitive levels of public health, but they may also be held back by an average intelligence even lower than that of black Americans. Most American blacks have at least some white ancestry, which raises their intelligence. Professor Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster in Ireland, probably the most prominent student of national differences in intelligence, reports that average IQs may be as low as 80 in Uganda and Ghana, 75 in Nigeria, and 65 in Zaire. Such low levels of intelligence would rule out any possibility of real development.